By comparing a quote from the temperature goals statement of the Paris Agreement (2015) with a quote from the website of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) of its remit from the Climate Change Act 2008 it becomes starkly clear how the latter fails to comply with the former:

  1. The temperature goals of The Paris Agreement are to keep “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2⁰C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels”.
  2. The CCC website states: “Through the Climate Change Act, the government has committed to:
  • reduce emissions by at least 80% of 1990 levels by 2050
  • contribute to global emission reductions, to limit global temperature rise to as little as possible above 2°C

Even with regards 2 degrees C we have the difference: “well below 2⁰C …” vs “… above 2°C”

This difference has big implications, and gives one of the reasons why the advice of the CCC on aviation expansion and Heathrow third runway undermines the UK meeting the Paris temperature goals*, and why its 2050 target and budgets are inadequate for the temperature goals, and why Plan B Earth is taking the government to court this month (hearing on Wednesday 4 July) to “demand the UK government align its climate change policies with its international obligations under COP21”.

* Aviation is given by CCC a “generous” path of increase in emissions well above a 2 degrees C path – on the condition that other sectors reduce emissions below a 2 degrees path – which is near impossible for a 1.5⁰C path.

Henry Adams, 2 July 2018

Please also read my comments below, which show why it is vital we keep below the Paris temperature goals.



CETA   – links to references   – an ongoing collation by Henry Adams = shortened link to this online as a pdf

This is a wordpress copy of the initial pages of the pdf of the same name on the dragonfly1 website – for use when the website was removed on 8feb17 following a probable DoS attack.


CETA text 29feb16 as pdf c.1598pp

Warning: no ‘contents’ section in it!                Also:

NB: CETA final text still contains a version of ISDS (ICS-compatible), which means that:

 NB: Tens of Thousands of U.S. Firms Would Obtain New Powers to Launch Investor-State Attacks against European Policies via CETA and TTIP: 81 Percent of U.S. Firms in the EU Could Launch ISDS Attacks with CETA Alone; U.S. Corporations Are the Most Aggressive Users of the ISDS Regime – Public Citizen  & EU-Canada CETA trade deal is a back door for US to sue EU – even if TTIP fails

See page 3 for CETA references in reverse chronological order. Below and p.2 I select some of the many useful ones.

I have a separate pdf of references on ICS / ISDS here:



Write to your MEPs before they vote on CETA on 15th February 2017 – or PHONE with help from SumOfUs

Here’s some help:

My letter to Labour MEPs:

I focus mainly on climate and the ICS-ISDS. For other reasons against CETA try e.g.

12 reasons the Green/EFA Group is opposed to CETA: and/or these 10 reasons from GJN:

Or try the graphic below, or the references listed below:

Here’s War on Want’s summary of CETA: and pdf. WonW’s May2016 briefing:

Linda Kaucher’s Spring 2016 briefing on CETA is appended [on the pdf], or at least a summary of it by her.

Making Sense of CETA – 2nd edition – An analysis of the final text of the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – PowerShift (Berlin) & Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 82pp
“Making Sense of CETA – 2nd edition Published by PowerShift, CCPA et al., Berlin/Ottawa, 2016 This report is available free of charge at  and at  Publishers PowerShift – Verein für eine ökologisch-solidarische Energie- & Weltwirtschaft e.V. Greifswalder Str. 4 (Haus der Demokratie & Menschenrechte), 10405 Berlin Tel.: +49-(0)30-42805479 Email:  Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) Suite 500, 251 Bank Street, Ottawa, ON, K2P 1X3 Canada  … – 22sep16.


page 5 Introduction

page 9 Executive summary

page 13 Investment protection and dispute settlement in CETA

PowerShift e. V. and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)

page 21 The financial services chapter: Inflating bank profits at

the expense of citizens

Myriam Vander Stichele, SOMO

page 27 Public services under threat

Roeline Knottnerus, Transnational Institute

with Scott Sinclair, CCPA

page 31 Trade in services

PowerShift e.V. and CCPA

page 37 Limiting how and what government regulates

Ellen Gould, CCPA

page 43 More cooperation for less regulation

Max Bank, LobbyControl

with Ronan O‘ Brien and Lora Verheecke,

Corporate Europe Observatory

page 47 Patents, copyright and innovation

Ante Wessels, Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, e. V.

page 51 CETA’s threat to agricultural markets and food quality

Berit Thomsen, Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft

(AbL, Working Group for Local Agriculture)

page 59 Free trade or climate protection? Energy and climate–policy related threats posed by CETA

Ernst-Christoph Stolper, Friends of the Earth Germany

page 67 Labour rights

Angela Pfister, Austrian Federation of Trade Unions

Éva Dessewffy, Austrian Chamber of Labour

page 71 Canada-specific concerns

Scott Sinclair and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, CCPA

page 77 CETA ratification in Canada and Europe: Multiple opportunities for


the agreement

Michael Efler, More Democracy e. V.


p.59 11 – Free trade or climate protection – pdf



CETA: Trading away democracy – HOW CETA’S INVESTOR PROTECTION RULES COULD RESULT IN A BOOM OF INVESTOR CLAIMS AGAINST CANADA AND THE EU – September 2016 – A Joint Publication, September 2016 (20 pages). Written by Pia Eberhardt et al. Excellent report.

– highlights the ICS-ISDS in CETA. Excellent summary page of dangers e.g. Canadian mining companies in EU  e.g. Gabriel Resources – Romania case. Quotes:

Chevron argues that the mere existence of ISDS is important as it acts as a deterrent. – EU Commission official about a meeting with Chevron on ISDS, 29th April 2014

It’s a lobbying tool in the sense that you can go in and say, ‘Ok, if you do this, we will be suing you for compensation.’ […] It does change behaviour in certain cases. – Peter Kirby, law firm Fasken Martineau, on investor-state arbitration

This doesn’t change anything because the standards on the basis of which judgements are rendered remain the same. – Nigel Blackaby, arbitration lawyer with Freshfields on the EU’s ICS proposal.

Published by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Transnational Institute, Powershift, the Council of Canadians, Védegylet Egyesület, War on Want, Umanotera, Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), Quebec Network on Continental Integration (RQIC), Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, Global Justice Now (GJN), European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Association Internationale de techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (AITEC), Attac Austria, LobbyControl, Vienna Chamber of Labour (AK Vienna), Afrika Kontakt, Ecologistas en Acción, Instytut Globalnej Odpowiedzialności (IGO), Both Ends, Nature Friends Greece, Centre national de coopération au développement (CNCD-11.11.11) and Attac France.

CETA puts your food safety at risk – joint briefing pdf by 13+ NGOs

..nov16 CETA: the EU-Canada free trade agreement – Commons Library briefing – UK Parliament

The right to say no: EU–Canada trade agreement threatens fracking bans by Pia Eberhardt, Timothé Feodoroff, Emma Lui, Cecilia Olivet and Stuart Trew May 2013 briefing pdf


NB: European Parliament’s plenary vote on CETA is tabled for Wednesday 15th February 2017

(It’s simply a yes/no binary vote with no scope allowed for amendments or votes on part of it e.g. the ICS/ISDS)



References below are in reverse chronological order, most recent at top:

Many refs are related to events. Other refs – marked *** are some of the assessments of CETA.

*** EP plenary vote on 15 February on CETA: Joint briefing from the European Trade Union Federations – EPSU.  – a useful list with summaries.

[NB: this version lacks graphics of the original, and links to my website don’t work today because my website has been taken off-line by my ISP due to a possible DoS attack]

Dear MEP,

URGENT: Please vote NO to CETA

Please vote NO to CETA when Labour and S&D MEPs meet to decide a position on CETA, and likewise in the plenary vote tabled for Wednesday 15th February, regardless of what position Labour and S&D might adopt. Also please persuade your Labour colleagues and other MEPs in the S&D group to do so too. There are so many strong reasons to stop CETA, but for brevity I’ll focus on just a few here.

In summary I much agree with Thomas Picketty on CETA: “The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming.”… [I would add biodiversity and habitat loss] “From this point of view, Ceta, the EU-Canada free trade deal, should be rejected. It is a treaty which belongs to another age. This strictly commercial treaty contains absolutely no restrictive measures concerning fiscal or climate issues. It does, however, contain a considerable reference to the “protection of investors”. ” … [my bolding]

CETA strongly protects investment by transnational companies, such as with its ICS version of ISDS, but in contrast its text to protect citizens, climate and environment from harmful activities by big business is weak and toothless.


1. CETA and its ICS-ISDS undermines the temperature goals of the Paris climate agreement.

For this reason alone CETA must be stopped.

We cannot allow big US oil companies (especially as now empowered within the Trump government), and Canadian mining and fracking companies, to be given the extra powers in CETA’s ICS-compatible ISDS, to be able to challenge and undermine climate and environmental legislation. Nor can we allow big US and Canadian multinationals to undermine our legislation to protect our food standards, health and safety, environment, and employment rights.

Please read my briefing to my MP Tim Farron on the ICS/ISDS:
The strong case against separate corporate court systems (ICS/ISDS)

 The press release I wrote for the signature handover photographed below summarizes the threats of an ICS/ISDS in CETA.

Please represent your constituents:

Press release: ‘Over a thousand local residents sign petition against more legal powers for big corporations’

CETA would protect the tar sands industry’s desired expansion by means of export to the EU and elsewhere, which would undermine the Paris Agreement. The negotiations towards CETA and TTIP have already resulted in the dilution of the climate legislation within EU’s Fuel Quality Directive to ineffectiveness, and CETA if ratified would make it much harder to re-instate the legislation’s aim to reduce the carbon emissions associated with transport fuels. Furthermore, President Trudeau has recently approved the expansion of the tar sands via pipelines for export, including the Keystone XL pipeline and others too. There is no way we should approve CETA with a government that is ignoring the impact of tar sands expansion on climate and using CETA to further such polluting desires.

It’s not just CETA’s ICS-ISDS: “Regulatory cooperation” via CETA would result in North American transnational corporations having a stronger influence on EU regulations that protect us and our environment. Also the Canadians don’t want to respect the EU’s precautionary principle and CETA does not protect this important concept.

2. CETA is the opposite to “progressive” in the sense used by people genuinely concerned with social justice, and as pointed out by the OPINION statement of The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs: CETA “would contribute to widening the gap between unskilled and skilled workers thus increasing inequalities and social tensions.” … “… such SMEs will be exposed to the full force of competition from large North American transnational corporations thus endangering the 90 million jobs (67% of total employment) that they are providing.” … But Cecilia Malmstrom appears to define “progressive” differently – as shown in the attached or appended jpg’s.

The European Trade Union Federations including EPSU, in their joint briefing on CETA also conclude that “CETA is not a progressive and fair trade agreement”, and “ask you not to consent in the plenary vote on 15 February to CETA’s ratification”.
3. On human rights, UN human rights expert, Alfred de Zayas states: “CETA is incompatible with rule of law, democracy and human rights.”

4. … Here are some more reasons:

[graphic on original document]
I could write many pages against CETA! But I hope the above is convincing enough.

If you need more sources, I have complied numerous studies on CETA here:

This compilation includes summaries from numerous groups who conclude against CETA.

Finally – I hope you have read Jude Kirton-Darling MEP’s blog post: Why I Would Vote Against CETA.

Yours sincerely,

Henry Adams

Dr Henry Adams (Ecological Consultant)

Home phone:                           Mobile:

55 Hayclose Crescent, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7NT

Hidden dangers for us all in TTIP and CETA:  <<<<
Climate red lines for TTIP and CETA: <<<<


On next page: screen-grabs re OPINION statement of Committee on Employment and Social Affairs


For many reasons, but especially because:

1. We need to cut carbon emissions significantly more than the coalition government is pretending to do now, so as to lower our trajectory from plus 4 to 6 degrees down to below 2 degreesC.

2. This means we can only burn a fifth of total proven reserves of fossil fuels. So why is the coalition gov investing into increasing those reserves such as from the Arctic and shale gas?

3. The City and our banks are one of the biggest world investors into fossil fuels, such that it is nick-named The Carbon Capital. E.g. our banks are huge investors into coal worldwide, and to high emissions unconventionals such as tar sands. But Osborne promotes this sector and its fossil fuel investments. That needs to stop. Divestment from fossil fuels is needed.

4. We need legislation to stop fossil fuel conflicts of interest within government, which is riddled with ff co. employees and ministers and advisors linked to fossil fuel industry and ff financiers.

5. With divestment from fossil fuels, insulating houses (especially those occupied by people in fuel poverty) and energy efficiency of buildings, are the two of the greenest ways of cutting carbon within the UK

6, Support the EU’s CC legislation within the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive)

7. Ensure that the FTAs with Canada & USA are not Trojan Horses for allowing the ff industry to trump and chill sovereign and EU climate legislation with their lethal investor-state clauses’s.

8 ….99+

In summary, I need to be green to counteract the Osborne-Cameron drive for fossil fuels and their suppression of green alternatives.

So when are you Nick going to stand up to the fossil-fuelophiles OsCam & Co. ?

ASAP please – and at least on the above examples